Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ADSM\-L\]\s+Strange\s+difference\s+between\s+Primary\s+and\s+Copypool\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ADSM\-L\]\s+Strange\s+difference\s+between\s+Primary\s+and\s+Copypool\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:22:50 +0100; Hi *SM-ers! I found something very strange on one of my TSM servers. When I issue the following command: select stgpool_name as "Storagepool",sum(physical_mb) as "MB" from occupancy group by stgpool_; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00146.html (14,189 bytes)
2. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: Jim Young <jimyoung AT CATTLES.CO DOT UK>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:26:55 -0500; Hi My theory works if the following is true. 1) the copy pool is offsite. 2) your statement that the copy pool is larger than the primary pool was incorrect. Its the other way round looing at the num; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00151.html (14,304 bytes)
3. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:05:14 +0100; Hi Jim! My copy pool is an online copy pool. Tapes (in fact virtual tapes) are not checked out, nor removed from the (virtual) library. I didn't state that my copy pool is larger than the primary poo; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00164.html (16,285 bytes)
4. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: Andy Huebner <Andy.Huebner AT ALCONLABS DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:29:06 -0600; I would say it is normal to have a little more data in the primary pool due to on-going backups. We have backups running all the time. Since the primary and copy tapes are created differently I am no; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00167.html (17,690 bytes)
5. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: Larry Peifer <Larry.Peifer AT SCE DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:04:29 -0800; Eric, I'm interested in learning more about the particulars of your environment. We have been experiencing some odd behavior with our tape pools after recently upgrading the TSM server to 5.4.0 and t; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00171.html (19,147 bytes)
6. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: Helder Garcia <helder.garcia AT GMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:42:52 -0200; Larry, DB backup tapes does not belong to any particular storage pool. Anyway, your environment shows more acceptable numbers than Eric's. A little delta (106 to 112) in the number of tapes is always; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00175.html (21,822 bytes)
7. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:02:03 +0100; Hi Andy! I have 3 servers (LBU1, LBU2 and LBU3) running. Checkout their private volume count: DL_LBU1_CPY_1 Private 634 DL_LBU1_PRI_1 Private 643 DL_LBU2_CPY_1 Private 561 DL_LBU2_PRI_1 Private 564 D; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00178.html (19,347 bytes)
8. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:05:13 +0100; Hi Larry! We are using EMC DL700 disk libraries which emulate several 3584 libraries with LTO2 tapes. Personally, I find the difference between primary and copy pool tape count in your shop not as sh; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00179.html (20,939 bytes)
9. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:06:33 +0100; Hi Helder! I'm 100% sure reclamation is set to 60% on all storage pools on all servers. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Larry, DB backup tapes does not belong to any particula; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00180.html (23,362 bytes)
10. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: Helder Garcia <helder.garcia AT GMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:42:25 -0200; Eric, I meant collocation. It can be by node, by group, by filespace or no collocation. On Dec 12, 2007 11:06 AM, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM <Eric-van.Loon AT klm DOT com> wrote: -- Helder Garcia; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00182.html (25,199 bytes)
11. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: Larry Peifer <Larry.Peifer AT SCE DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:24:03 -0800; Eric - It looks like your system is storing about the same amount of data, 26TB / 27TB, as our system is but I notice that you are using over 300 more LTO2 tapes to store it on. Is that correct? Are; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00186.html (22,603 bytes)
12. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: Larry Peifer <Larry.Peifer AT SCE DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:32:30 -0800; Helder, In our case we always direct the DB backup to a particular tape library by design. backup db type=full devclass=ltoclass7 where ltoclass7 only has one device in it; which is in our DR alterna; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00192.html (22,296 bytes)
13. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:09:48 +0100; Hi Larry! Aparently... We don't use collocation (see my erlier post to Helder today). Here is the output from the q devclass: Device Device Storage Device Format Est/Max Mount Class Access Pool Type; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00216.html (25,945 bytes)
14. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: Dominique Laflamme <dominique.laflamme.mbh7 AT STATEFARM DOT COM>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:26:08 -0700; I'm working without the benefit of a set of doc PDFs at the moment, but I have a fairly specific recollection that when Group Collocation was introduced in 5.3, the default behavior for collocation o; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00219.html (13,731 bytes)
15. Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool (score: 1): Author: "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM>; Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:58:12 +0100; Hi Helder! Sorry, I read reclamation instead of collocation. I have to read more careful... Since we use virtual tapes, we have virtually no mount times (well, about 2 seconds) and no data seek times; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2007-12/msg00223.html (27,243 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]